NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1771/2005

M/S.RAJ HOSPITALS & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA SHARMA & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

MR.K.R.CHAWLA

16 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 04 Jul 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1771/2005
(Against the Order dated 20/05/2005 in Appeal No. 226/2004 of the State Commission Jharkhand)
1. M/S.RAJ HOSPITALS & ANR.MAIN ROAD P.S.-HINDPIRI DISTT. RANCHI 834001 - ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. KRISHNA SHARMA & ANRANAND MAYEE MAA ASHRAM KATCHI BUILDING MAIN ROAD RANCHI ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR.K.R.CHAWLA
For the Respondent :Mr. Rahul Gupta & Mr. Achinto Sen, adv. for -, Advocate

Dated : 16 Jul 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          State Commission had proceeded against the petitioner ex-parte as according to it, the petitioner did not appear inspite of having been informed about the date of hearing.

 

          We have gone through the Interim Court Orders passed by the State Commission in between 08.6.2004 to 20.1.2005.  After going through the interim orders, we are not satisfied that there was a proper service on the petitioner.  This is a case of ‘Medical Negligence’ in which we are of the opinion that the petitioner is required to be given a detailed hearing on facts as well as law.  Hence, order under the Revision Petition is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing both sides without being influenced by any of the observations made by the State Commission in the interim orders or by us.  This shall be subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as cost to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks, which shall be irrespective of the result of the litigation.

          At the time of issuance of notice, operation of the impugned order was directed to be stayed subject to deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- with the State Commission.  The said order had been complied with.  Out of the said amount, Rs.1,25,000/- have already been released to the respondent under the orders of this Commission. 

-3-

The remaining sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is directed to be kept by the State Commission which shall be released in terms of order passed by the State Commission. 

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.8.2009.

            Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within three months from the first date of appearance.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER